In a radio address on September 14, 2002, President Bush warned, "Today Saddam Hussein has the scientists and infrastructure for a nuclear-weapons program, and has illicitly sought to purchase the equipment needed to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should his regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year."
On October 7, 2002, the President told a group in Cincinnati, "If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."
On November 1, 2002, Undersecretary of State John Bolton told the Second Global Conference on Nuclear, Bio/Chem Terrorism, "We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material—whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile-material capability—it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year."
Vice President Cheney said on NBC's Meet the Press on September 14, 2003, "The judgment in the NIE was that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material, that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year. That was the judgment of the intelligence community of the United States, and they had a high degree of confidence in it."
Okay, I'm trying to stay away from Glenn, but he's got a new egregious bit of Glennuendo. In an entry discussing how Bill Clinton suspected Saddam Hussein maintained WMD, Glenn characterizes criticism of Bush's case for said WMD as such:
the popular Bush-made-it-up theory
He also says that since Clinton suspected that Iraq had WMD, it excuses the Bush Administration's obviously flawed attempt to prove that Saddam had WMD, because, as we all know, suspicion is the same thing as evidence. It's yet another example of Glenn's inability to properly synthesize an argument outside of his basic axioms (another of which is that "the buck stops at Clinton").
Nobody that I know of is saying that Bush made up the suspicion that Saddam had WMDs, or historically had them. What many are saying (be careful to pay attention to this, because it's the actual argument) is that Bush's case for Saddam's present WMD was based largely on purposeful misreading of intelligence, fabrications, and a passion for getting the war he wanted, facts be damned. Bush's case for Saddam presently being a threat, based on the information available to him as the president from his intelligence services, was MADE UP. It's not an intelligence failure - it's a failure of integrity and honesty.
« Older How To Deconstruct Almost Anything.... | Your weekend's entertainment.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt